Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall

    Since Valley View Mall's anti gun policy comes up so often, I thought this may be interesting.

    Sexually assaulted teen sues Valley View Mall
    Last edited by peter nap; 09-28-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Good luck to this young lady. If Valley View Mall has a no weapons policy they sure don't go to much effort to make it known. I can tell you for a certainty that smoking is banned at that place and they go to great lengths to make sure that's known.
    Last edited by jmelvin; 09-28-2010 at 05:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    I have a problem with this. I don't blame anyone but the CRIMINAL for a criminal act. Sue him for raping you, don't sue the mall (because the music is too loud in the dressing room and that caused the man to rape you) just because the mall has deeper pockets.

    Even if the store has a policy preventing firearms, I don't think they should be held financially responsible for what a criminal does in the store. You still have the ability to not shop there if you don't agree with that policy and don't feel you can be protected in that location.

    I do support legislation that makes the store specifically not liable for damages that occur during a defensive shooting situation because again, it's not really in the store's control what crazy people do in that store...

    What if the mall security in this case attempted to kick the man out and he went nuts, pulled a gun and shot at people and the girl in the dressing room got hit and died? Would her family be allowed to sue the mall for attempting to remove the man? I think that's absurd.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    I have a problem with this. I don't blame anyone but the CRIMINAL for a criminal act. Sue him for raping you, don't sue the mall (because the music is too loud in the dressing room and that caused the man to rape you) just because the mall has deeper pockets.

    Even if the store has a policy preventing firearms, I don't think they should be held financially responsible for what a criminal does in the store. You still have the ability to not shop there if you don't agree with that policy and don't feel you can be protected in that location.

    I do support legislation that makes the store specifically not liable for damages that occur during a defensive shooting situation because again, it's not really in the store's control what crazy people do in that store...

    What if the mall security in this case attempted to kick the man out and he went nuts, pulled a gun and shot at people and the girl in the dressing room got hit and died? Would her family be allowed to sue the mall for attempting to remove the man? I think that's absurd.


    I didn't post an opinion on this for a reason.
    There are two distinct lines of thought here and a few in the middle.

    The first is "They have to accept responsibility for my safety if I'm disarmed".
    They of course will be the first to sue or at least talk about it if the music is too loud.

    The second is "Private property rights trumps all on private property"
    Since I fall in that category, I'd have been fine because I wouldn't have been there in the first place.

    This is an interesting situation because an anti gun mall is being sued for not throwing out a drunk and having the music turned up too loud.

    It gives a glimpse of the other side of the coin.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700
    Valley View Mall is on the VCDL gun owner unfriendly list. I wonder if the contact info in that listing is out of date.

    Also, I've been to rock concerts that were quieter than the A&F I've visited at Short Pump Town Center.
    ---

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    While I agree that the criminal needs to be held accountable for his actions (as do we all) there is another aspect at play regarding the mall, the store, and the mall security firm. The mall and the store both invite the public to come onto the private property. They have an obligation to provide certain basic measures of safety - usually covered by things like building codes and the like. The security company has an obligation to protect the assets of their client(s) as well as some very basic duty to the visiting public through such actions as enforcing mall behavioral policy. If they were advised of the presence of the drunken individual before he committed a criminal act then they might be obligated to attempt to remove him/have him removed.

    However, absent a working crystal ball I fail to see how anyone could anticipate the drunk turning into a sexual assaulter - even if he was hanging around the dressing room area.

    However, someone has to be responsible for what happened to this young lady - and the deeper the pockets the better the chance of getting some level of compensation for the injuries suffered. Also, by making someone else responsible, both this victim and society perpetuate the notion that we cannot and should not be held responsible for puttng ourself in danger and then getting hurt. All power to the Nanny State!

    By the way - what 16-year old girl goes shopping (at the mall, no less) by herself? Where were her friends while all this was happening? What did they do - or not do - while this was happening.

    Too many unanswered questions at this point, but I'm quite willing to award $1.00 in damages to be divided 45% against the mall, 45% against S&F, and 10% against the security company. now they are on notice that they have some degree of responsibility to provide basic - very basic - protections for their invitees.

    stay safe.

  7. #7
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Misconceptions people often take for granted.

    This does bring up a good point that while anti gun, pro criminal malls, try and give out a false sense of security and make you think that you are safe within their walls, they are talking nonsense. Things like this do happen and all the time. One incident from one mall, I am sure there are many more things that happen like this and worse all over the place, just not reported on. I wonder what a pole would show for those that say they feel nothing would happen to them at a mall.

    Now while I do agree with private property owner’s rights, I also believe that when they throw out a sense of security at what ever level they are responsible for what they relay. I have never been to this mall, but I would think they have a sign with nothing but prohibited things like guns. As well I am sure the security guard presence is known as they can be seen. I doubt you would see a sign with a caution that while the mall is staffed with security guards and don’t allow weapons of any kind and so forth vigilance is up to each and every customers because things can happen beyond their control.

    While warnings are mandatory to print on products such as choking hazards, cancer hazards, fire hazards and so fourth and many of them being obvious without the warning labels, you would think something like this would need an attached sign. Than again if cigarette makers and other products didn’t have the warning signs they could as well give a false sense of security about their products. I will admit cigarettes may shorten my life by about 20 years, but a criminal can ruin it in a matter of seconds.

    Personally I hope her law suite goes well and this brings attention to what can happen in real life and show so many that in reality crime can hit any where, regardless of places like this saying “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    But places like the mall do not say “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.

    All they say is "You cannot carry a gun for yourb protection here."

    That's because they know better than to say "It's safe here." And if they do not know better their insurance company attorneys will tell them not to say that.

    Security guards can only deal with shoplifting, unless they are Special Conservators of the Peace. I doubt any mall operator/management company wants to set up their own private police department and pay (nearly) prevailing cop wages when they can get an unarmed security guard for barely above minimum wage.

    Anybody who believes security theater also probably believes in the tooth fairy and that unicorns poop rainbow skittles.

    stay safe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    [QUOTE=skidmark;1366408]But places like the mall do not say “it’s safe here, there is no reason you would need to carry a gun for your protection”.

    All they say is "You cannot carry a gun for yourb protection here."

    Maybe I should have said it in a different manner. I ad hear to don’t ask, don’t tell. That being said if there is not a posting and I get booted out, or I come across places that are posted, like many I will write letters. Two that come to mind are The State Fair of Va, and Kings Dominion, Virginia Center Commons didn’t have the decency to contact me back, as well as some others. State Fair of Va and Kings Dominion both replied that they take firm security measures including drug testing and background checks and with the security and or police presence my family and I should not worry as they are a safe place to be.

    I will look for the direct responses from them when I get home so I can post. I hope when I lost some of my emails those were not among them.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    No duty to protect in Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    While I agree that the criminal needs to be held accountable for his actions (as do we all) there is another aspect at play regarding the mall, the store, and the mall security firm. The mall and the store both invite the public to come onto the private property. They have an obligation to provide certain basic measures of safety - usually covered by things like building codes and the like. The security company has an obligation to protect the assets of their client(s) as well as some very basic duty to the visiting public through such actions as enforcing mall behavioral policy. If they were advised of the presence of the drunken individual before he committed a criminal act then they might be obligated to attempt to remove him/have him removed.

    However, absent a working crystal ball I fail to see how anyone could anticipate the drunk turning into a sexual assaulter - even if he was hanging around the dressing room area.

    stay safe.
    In general, there is no duty to protect in Virginia. A few narrow exceptions apply.

    It seems the lawsuit may anticipate one of those exception, spelled out in this case:

    Familiar principles control our determination of whether Skate America potentially had a duty of care in this case. “In Virginia, we adhere to the rule that the owner or occupier of land ordinarily is under no duty to protect an invitee from a third person’s criminal act committed while the invitee is upon the premises.” Gupton v. Quicke, 247 Va. 362, 363, 442 S.E.2d 658, 658 (1994). However, we have recognized that certain “special relationships” may exist between particular plaintiffs and defendants, either as a matter of law or because of the particular factual circumstances in a given case, which may give rise to a duty of care on the part of the defendant to warn and/or protect the plaintiff against the danger of harm from the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts committed by a third person.

    ...

    In Wright, the first instance in which we addressed directly the special relationship between a business owner and an invitee, we held that despite the existence of that special relationship, the business owner does not owe a duty of care to protect its invitee unless it “knows that criminal assaults against persons are occurring, or are about to occur, on the premises which indicate an imminent probability of harm to [its] invitee.” Wright, 234 Va. at 533, 362 S.E.2d at 922. We further held that for the duty to be imposed there must be “notice of a specific danger just prior to the assault.” Id.

    ...

    Indeed, the allegations in Thompson’s motion for judgment plainly state that Skate America had specific knowledge of Bateman’s propensity to assault its other invitees, had intervened to inhibit that behavior in the past, and had taken steps to avoid a reoccurrence of that behavior in the future. Thus, taking these allegations as true on demurrer, we are of opinion that the allegations as to Bateman’s presence on Skate America’s premises were sufficient to state a claim that Skate America was on notice specifically that Thompson was in danger of being injured by Bateman in a criminal assault. The “imminent probability” of that harm, as characterized in Wright, is merely a heightened degree of the “foreseeability” of that harm and here we are of opinion that the specific allegations concerning the knowledge Skate America had of Bateman’s prior violent conduct satisfied the necessary degree of foreseeability.
    Thompson v. Skate America, Inc., 261 Va. 121, 129, 540 S.E.2d 123, 127 (2001).

  11. #11
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    One thing that shows clear in my mind is the screwed up principals of this mall. Not allowing legal lawfully carrying gun owners in, but allowing a drunk and probably disorderly person to stay. You would have even thought because someone reported him they would have at least kept their eye on him, than again I guess because he was not a law abiding gun owner they felt they didn't need too.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    205

    Here are a few cases that support liability on the part of the property owner

    CAMPOS v OPA LOCKA FLEA MARKET - $2.2 Million Settlement
    Surviving children, Marlon, Soraya and Myron Campos, successfully brought wrongful death claims for their parents against the Opa-Locka Flea Market. The Alexis Izquierdo Law Firm effectively demonstrated that the Flea Market was negligent in their security provisions. As a result of the case, one of Florida’s largest outdoor flea markets now has metal weapons detectors, video security cameras and additional security guards.

    MALDONADO V. PARK PLAZA HOTEL - $4 Million Settlement
    Plaintiff, Claudia Maldonado came to the firm of Alexis Izquierdo after discovering that her husband had been robbed and murdered at the Park Plaza Hotel in Hialeah, Florida. Mr. Izquierdo took on the case and filed suit against the hotel and the security company for not having sufficient security which could have prevented Ms. Maldonado from becoming a widow with several children. Mr. Izquierdo along with the firm of Haggard Parks obtained the highest negligent security settlement in Florida history at the time.

    These case cites are from a FL law firm; there may be more detailed sites on these cases in law reviews...

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    One thing that shows clear in my mind is the screwed up principals of this mall. Not allowing legal lawfully carrying gun owners in, but allowing a drunk and probably disorderly person to stay. You would have even thought because someone reported him they would have at least kept their eye on him, than again I guess because he was not a law abiding gun owner they felt they didn't need too.
    i'n not yet convinced that the mall, mall security, the mall store or any combination of them "allowed" a drunk to remain on the property. There's just not enough information to know how much they knew and when they knew it, let alone what action they did or did not take after they knew whatever it was they knew.

    What we need to focus on I believe, is that going into places where you are prohibited from using effective and efficient means of self-protection is decidedly going into a situation that presents a level of danger above the ordinary. Some gun guru once said that if he knew there was going to be trouble at a place he was going to, he would not go there.

    Of course that flies in the face of the excuse for thinking and logic [sorry for the rant] that lots of folks use instead of making a realistic appraisal of the safety of their actions and behavior. While sexual assaults in malls or their parking lots do not happen on a daily basis, they do happen. But some folks believe they only happen to "other people".

    On top of all else that I have said so far in this and previous posts, I have not yet done my rant about the parent(s) allowing a 16-year old to go to the mall alone. To save time, go ahead and insert your favorite version yourself.

    So - Uncle Skidmark's advice for folks is - if the place will not allow you to use effective and efficient means of self protection, think long and hard about if you want to go there. If not, and you need help finding an alternative source of the goods/services that place offers, feel free to call on me for assistance - I know how to spell GOOGLE fairly well.

    stay safe.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I'm glad Uncle Skidmark made it home safely. I've been clutching the phone all evening!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I'm glad Uncle Skidmark made it home safely. I've been clutching the phone all evening!
    I met Peter Nap while waiting for AAA to come and jumpstart me after my car battery died. I told him I would call if I needed help after getting started.

    Being as he is older than me (he was on the feasability study for dirt; I was merely on the implementation group) he considers me a small child and worries about me being out unsupervised.

    stay safe.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    I have a problem with this. I don't blame anyone but the CRIMINAL for a criminal act. Sue him for raping you, don't sue the mall (because the music is too loud in the dressing room and that caused the man to rape you) just because the mall has deeper pockets.

    Even if the store has a policy preventing firearms, I don't think they should be held financially responsible for what a criminal does in the store. You still have the ability to not shop there if you don't agree with that policy and don't feel you can be protected in that location.

    I do support legislation that makes the store specifically not liable for damages that occur during a defensive shooting situation because again, it's not really in the store's control what crazy people do in that store...

    What if the mall security in this case attempted to kick the man out and he went nuts, pulled a gun and shot at people and the girl in the dressing room got hit and died? Would her family be allowed to sue the mall for attempting to remove the man? I think that's absurd.
    I agree with this post. I cannot correlate the fact that a mall with an anti gun policy had any effect on this situation (drunk guy grabbing a young teen girl in the dressing room). Does anyone actually believe that if the mall was pro-gun, that this incident would not have occurred? An OCer foiling this man's plot and intervening during the crime? Fantasy world. Gropings occur daily on public sidewalks which allow open/c.c. carrying. The girl is suing the mall, security, and Abercromibie & Fitch. This portrays that she is looking for money and is hoping for a settlement. 10 years for a drunk groping is one hell of a sentence (deserved, but rarely seen). Sue happy society.

  17. #17
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by NovaCop10 View Post
    I agree with this post. I cannot correlate the fact that a mall with an anti gun policy had any effect on this situation (drunk guy grabbing a young teen girl in the dressing room). Does anyone actually believe that if the mall was pro-gun, that this incident would not have occurred? An OCer foiling this man's plot and intervening during the crime? Fantasy world. Gropings occur daily on public sidewalks which allow open/c.c. carrying. The girl is suing the mall, security, and Abercromibie & Fitch. This portrays that she is looking for money and is hoping for a settlement. 10 years for a drunk groping is one hell of a sentence (deserved, but rarely seen). Sue happy society.
    No gun policy, mall security. From people looking through rose colored glasses this could be associated with resonable expectation of being safe. While you are right, a gun may not have changed the circumstance, the over all picture is projected that the mall is supposed to be a safe place.

    If something fell from the ceiling and hurt a customer I would expect it would be this places liability. Under a reasonable projection of it being a safe place, I would again label this at that places liability. Was there a warning sign that said regardless of no guns and mall security it is up to you to take a consideration of your own security? Probably not.
    To you or I, it would be common sense, than again giving toys to young children that could choke on them should be too, but of course they must have warning labels.

    Again, shows this mall does not put costumers as its prioritys.
    Last edited by kennys; 10-08-2010 at 03:27 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    No gun policy, mall security. From people looking through rose colored glasses this could be associated with resonable expectation of being safe. While you are right, a gun may not have changed the circumstance, the over all picture is projected that the mall is supposed to be a safe place.

    If something fell from the ceiling and hurt a customer I would expect it would be this places liability. Under a reasonable projection of it being a safe place, I would again label this at that places liability. Was there a warning sign that said regardless of no guns and mall security it is up to you to take a consideration of your own security? Probably not.
    To you or I, it would be common sense, than again giving toys to young children that could choke on them should be too, but of course they must have warning labels.

    Again, shows this mall does not put costumers as its prioritys.
    Almost everywhere in this country is normally considered a "safe place" but it's naive thinking to believe that just because a place is relatively safe, that bad things can't happen there. Does this mean that you think if a particular mall had a well known reputation as a high crime place, then they would not have been responsible for any assault happening there because everyone knows it's a bad place, but a mall that has never had a bad thing happen inside and is considered a safe place would be liable if the same assault occurred there as the high crime mall? I would disagree with that and say that it's naive of anyone to believe that they are safe in ANY location regardless of past occurrences at that location. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own safety and security to the extent of their own physical and mental capabilities. No, I am not blaming the victim. I blame the criminal, and ONLY the criminal, for his actions.

    Your analogy of a ceiling tile falling is a completely different situation because the ceiling tile is not a malicious thinking creature. In that situation, the person responsible for the upkeep of the building would be responsible for the damage caused by his neglect.

    In the situation provided in this story, it was a criminal act by a malicious predator that caused the damage, and to say that anyone other than that malicious person is responsible for his behavior is absurd and borders on making the criminal into a victim because "oh the poor guy, if the mall security would have just done their job and kicked him out, then he wouldn't have had the opportunity and means to grope that girl, so it's not his fault, it's theirs"

    In this case, the girl is the victim, the groper is the criminal, and the mall is nothing more than the crime scene. The owner of a crime scene is not the criminal doing the act, and is not responsible for the actions of a criminal.

    She should sue the rapist, not the mall.
    Last edited by boyscout399; 10-08-2010 at 03:48 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    Your analogy of a ceiling tile falling is a completely different situation because the ceiling tile is not a malicious thinking creature. In that situation, the person responsible for the upkeep of the building would be responsible for the damage caused by his neglect.

    In the situation provided in this story, it was a criminal act by a malicious predator that caused the damage, and to say that anyone other than that malicious person is responsible for his behavior is absurd and borders on making the criminal into a victim because "oh the poor guy, if the mall security would have just done their job and kicked him out, then he wouldn't have had the opportunity and means to grope that girl, so it's not his fault, it's theirs"

    In this case, the girl is the victim, the groper is the criminal, and the mall is nothing more than the crime scene. The owner of a crime scene is not the criminal doing the act, and is not responsible for the actions of a criminal.

    She should sue the rapist, not the mall.
    I understand, but look at it this way if a bank left a loaded gun on a counter and a robber picked it up and robbed the bank taking as well customer possessions. . I could see the bank had nothing to do with the criminal action, but is clearly shown that they made it easier for the criminal to commit the act. I would expect, they would probably be sued over the situation. Even though that story is far fetched, I believe it was not only up to the store to take safety into consideration, but as well up to security to keep an eye out for inviting situations...Walk in with a gun even if you are legal get followed around. Walk in drunk and disorderly with complaints get nothing. Yes the criminal is the bad guy here, but it sounds like the mall made it easier for him. Criminals kill just like fires do. Why do they not have criminal codes?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    I understand, but look at it this way if a bank left a loaded gun on a counter and a robber picked it up and robbed the bank taking as well customer possessions. . I could see the bank had nothing to do with the criminal action, but is clearly shown that they made it easier for the criminal to commit the act. I would expect, they would probably be sued over the situation. Even though that story is far fetched, I believe it was not only up to the store to take safety into consideration, but as well up to security to keep an eye out for inviting situations...Walk in with a gun even if you are legal get followed around. Walk in drunk and disorderly with complaints get nothing. Yes the criminal is the bad guy here, but it sounds like the mall made it easier for him. Criminals kill just like fires do. Why do they not have criminal codes?
    In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.
    If I own a swimming pool, I am obligated to fence it and lock the gate or being violation of ordinances and face personal liability for injury or death to a second party, even if they were not invited. I must actively protect others, whether they have permission to be there or not.

    A bank (or other merchant), on the other hand, assumes no proactive position to protect my safety from criminal injury. They espouse the faulty logic, "just give him what he wants and he won't hurt anybody." Unfortunately, we know how that works out sometimes.

    The bank maintains that their losses are covered by insurance. Tell that to your spouse, significant other, or parents when you do not come home.

    The banking industry is perhaps the only business type of which I am aware that can make repeated insurance claims for the same kind of incident without having radical increase in premiums or being charged to make improvements to reduce re-occurrence.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    In your posed bank situation, though I think it would be a stupid and irresponsible move by the bank, I still contend that the person responsible for the robbery is the robber, not the bank. Is the bank required to not make it easier for a criminal to do his criminal act? They did not hand the gun to the felon, the felon picked it up of his own free will.
    I am not trying to split hairs here. I know there is no one place that can guarantee any ones safety 100%, as well I know just carrying a weapon does not give 100% safety. Having said that having a weapon gives you a larger chance of of survival than not. When someone opens their business to the public, I believe they have at least a certain amount of responsibility as to reasonable safety measures. Just as fire codes are enforced as a safety issue, so should other things be taken into account. Like GS said, we are responsible on private property not open to the public for things that could happen to even un invited guests. Why should businesses not be held accountable for minimal standards to the invited public? I guess that I will leave it that we agree to disagree....I almost forgot, yes she could have chosen to go some where else as an experienced informed adult may have, but yet you know how teens can be. Do you really think she thought about what could happen. Most don't even consider it, they are more worried about shopping and other things.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    I am not trying to split hairs here. I know there is no one place that can guarantee any ones safety 100%, as well I know just carrying a weapon does not give 100% safety. Having said that having a weapon gives you a larger chance of of survival than not. When someone opens their business to the public, I believe they have at least a certain amount of responsibility as to reasonable safety measures. Just as fire codes are enforced as a safety issue, so should other things be taken into account. Like GS said, we are responsible on private property not open to the public for things that could happen to even un invited guests. Why should businesses not be held accountable for minimal standards to the invited public? I guess that I will leave it that we agree to disagree....I almost forgot, yes she could have chosen to go some where else as an experienced informed adult may have, but yet you know how teens can be. Do you really think she thought about what could happen. Most don't even consider it, they are more worried about shopping and other things.
    I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.
    In most cases, being ill informed (poorly educated on a matter) and even with good intentions is neither a protection under the law nor a shelter from liability.

    The primary tenant here is that of personal property rights - something that I support vigorously. I differ from many though in that I believe that when you invite the general public you take on the responsibilities/duties greater than those presently imposed. I good example is non-discrimination of protected classes - you may chose to do so in your private home but not your privately owned business.

    Lets really twist this cats tail a bit.....Is not my right to protect my life more important than the color of my skin, my age or my religious affiliation? I submit that it is and if you invite the public.....well you see where I am going with that, I'm sure.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    I agree with you, however, the intentions of the business that bans weapons is not malicious. They are doing what they believe is the responsible action to protect their customers to the best of their capability. It doesn't matter that they're wrong. Their intentions are positive and not negative. They are not liable just because they were wrong.
    I agree that they may have their own justified reasons. I agree that business owners should have that right to decide, just as we have the right not to do business with them. Where the logic is flawed is in their explanation, and most of the time its misguided, is in the explanation that this is a family place, not a war zone, and a gun is not needed here. We all know shootings by criminals can happen every where no place is exempt. In instances with restaurants that serve alcohol, there is more deaths and injuries because of drunk driving and other alcohol related problems yet people want to regulate or ban fire arms while they are actually inflicting more danger with the difference that they are excepting money doing it.

    Taking guns totally out of the equation however. In a tool isle, end cap or even at a register, there is a potential for danger, but I can understand these areas not being monitored 100% of the time. Than again these areas often are because of money loss from shoplifters. Now with all the pervs and deviates out there take a simple dressing room. Often off to the side, thin doors that often don't always go to the floor or are even just curtains where people are undressing and trying on clothing, and that is not important enough to monitor. I will say it is a dumb thing to do, but I have seen parents have their kids wait in the dressing room while they go across the isle to find another size. They are not thinking, there is no warning sign there to deter them from doing this. Disaster waiting to happen that should be obvious to any shop owner. Add loud music and say a rack of clothing in front of the doors even worse..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •